[aur-general] Ocaml Packages

[Xyne]

Thomas S Hatch wrote:

> Yes, this is an ongoing issue, and it starts to scrape the question of a lot
> of package splitting with -devel packages. I think it would be safe in
> saying that that in general Arch does not do -devel packages, and it would
> be silly to start devel packages our here on the ocaml front!
> 
> But this sounds good, I think I that finding some solid ground on this
> little grey area will be the last part to the standard, I think I will ask
> Richard Jones what he thinks (although he will give me some crap about arch
> not splitting devel packages :) )
> 
> -Tom

I wasn't actually suggesting that we split the packages (whence the inclusion
of "Perhaps the ideal..."). I was just considering whether there would be any
advantages to that approach. The advent of split packages gives it a certain
allure, and the arguments for and against it are both based on KISS principles.

We could also go the simple route and say that all packages that provide
libraries|modules for general use should include the prefix in the name, and if
they provide an application as well then they should "provide" the application
name in the PKGBUILD, i.e. the pkgname without the prefix in most if not all
cases.

Vice versa would work too, but the prefixed name subsumes the unprefixed name
and would thus result in a hit when searching for either, which I prefer.



Regards,
Xyne